## 914

_

-.

OF&E OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TRXAR **AUSTIN** I-“--:- “~” ,, ~__._-^-__ : gouroCyllm
--

Hoaorablo Stephen P. Iiorbert county rttommy D4uitt Couaty CUWO ,T4xa4



## ment .onth4 abo ionof thie Departr4oslr4d. t aa 

### r0u0w81 t. S67-B Pd., &x144

l S4r., r4pclals344. the **prossoutton** et **y worthlerrsl**  **oh40ls, as**  of Art. 1546P.C., whrr4 raid aorlbd by limitation. rd8, 1* hoa had brought to thlr oka whioh are 4peoifioallyoovrr4d

. 1846 P.C., end part144holdin@ to ii14 somplalrrt8. “1iin6 no authority to **rupport** the eontention blaoa4, that beoaurr thr bad oheok law (Art. 667-B, P.C.) r4p4aia 340. 4 of Art. 1546 P.C.,

### as o? S4pt. Z!O,1939,no ooqlaints oould be filbd and no **prorooutions** had daos oaid date ot 34pt.Eonorable Staphon P. Sorbert, Paga %

Bo, 1939. In other words, it would appaar to ma that if one oanaotb4 proa4outrd at thl8 tint4 for hevfng ooamltt4d 

### a 4riniaaloff4na4 prior to S@,ember RO, 1939 under **940.** 4 or Art. 1546 P.C., it **would 04411** thatthe later hot @hook law,Art. 567-B P.C., would be r4troaotlv4.w In an opinioamadared by th4Court of Crialnal App4ala in the oaa4 of Padlook vs. tho State of Texas, dolivers4 Irebruary14, 1940, (not yet reported) your queition was aaav4r4d 

### in thr 

### noptivo.
lows W4quote iron **thr** above nentfonedopiafon as fol- : “BJ **Eo-404** Billlo. 190 of th4 46th k&alaturo,Chapt4r lT,Volum4 1, pag4 %46, tin4ral Laws, a naw aotwas para4d oov4riag tho

### l ubjaut of swindling by bad ahooka. **S40tlon** 7 of said aot in apeoifio language, repsala Seation4 of Artiolr 1-6 of thePeaal Code. That ia th4 art1014 under whloh th4prea4at proaeeutloa is had. The **qaeatlon** haa baea'rska4d as to whether or not the rapes1 of **that** aeetioa **by** fhasew act **aubsequant** to tho ooamlaafon of the offense wou1.bbar the pmaooutlon. 'The ofr~nu ondrr aonalderation isalleged **to hav4**  **ooourred in**  **February,** 1939,and was triad at theJuly term of oourt in 1939. The 46th Logtslatura adjournadon June ?A, 1939, aad said 80~04 Bill loi 190 did not bacoae ettootlvr uatll 90 days after adjournment. *artiola 1844P.C. wa8 in ofiaot at

### thetime M4tk L alleged OOaIEfOOiOB of the ~3?fOB08 pnd at OS the trial. Of aoara4. if Art. 1545. P.C., had bean rapeah&, and the iot therein W daaounoadwas no longer an orfana41 this proaaoution would be and& but th4 46th Lsgislaturm ;y4 Bill Ilo.190fAwhfl4 r4poaliag Art. 1546,

. ., also ra-4na4te a ltatuta whioh m464 offenses the mm sotswhioh bad thmrtoforo been donouao4d as auoh in Art. 1546. The penaltywas 

### da0 inoraaaod. Under the olrauaatana~artated, Arts. 13, 14, 13 and 16 o? th4 Pea81 Coda are **operatita.** They 

### are aonatrwd and gfvrn effect in Aahv. State, 134 TBX. Cr. R; RO8, 114 9.W.

## 916

Banorabla Stephen P. Bsrbert , Page 3
(%d) 889, and the cases therein cited, and also In Sgangler ‘1. State, 133 Tex. Cr. %. 36, 11’1 S. iv. (24) 63; s. if. (2d) 919. 3tanabury 4t al v. State, 1l.l
*It 

### la not to be nndaratood that ne are here oonstrulng or passing on the Conatitutlonalltr of the Act of the 46th Leglalature Ln questloa. The extent of our holding 

### la that undar *to. 13 to 16, lnolualve, of thrPenal Cod4, said Aet does not affect the preaaat proa4out loa.

“ft la thereiota our oonelualoa that proaeoublon vi11 li4 ?or offeaaso oomaltted prior to SepteiaIer 01, 1939. Further that (than) this, it is au??lol4nt to say that theprea4nt 

### eaa4 does not raise any queatlonas to the oonatitutionallty 0r tbs re-snaota4nt aboveraferred to aa Eouee Bill Bo. 190, Acts of the 46th La5151atur4.- Our oplnloa Ro. O-1564 whioh la in con?llot with tha holding of thla opinion f8 hereby exprs6aly overruled.

rruatlng that tho ?ore5oin.5 ?ully answers your lnq&y, we remain


### Yours very truly

i;rdell Wllllasu A8alataat



### APPROVED **OPINION** 

# 0 COhlMl?-rEc T%?